Cargando…

Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To contrast the effect of rebamipide with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs alone for the treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD-) induced ulcers. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, the WanFang database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Junyuan, Xiong, Zhencheng, Geng, Xuhua, Cui, Meihua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33062694
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7196782
_version_ 1783591001845137408
author Liu, Junyuan
Xiong, Zhencheng
Geng, Xuhua
Cui, Meihua
author_facet Liu, Junyuan
Xiong, Zhencheng
Geng, Xuhua
Cui, Meihua
author_sort Liu, Junyuan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To contrast the effect of rebamipide with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs alone for the treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD-) induced ulcers. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, the WanFang database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were recognized, including 1170 patients. In general, rebamipide plus PPIs acted better than PPIs alone against ESD-induced ulcers at four weeks (RR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.13-1.78, P = 0.003) but showed no significant differences at eight weeks (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97-1.10, P = 0.315). The use of rebamipide plus PPIs was superior to PPIs alone for ESD-induced ulcers greater than 20 mm in size (20-40 mm: RR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.22-3.23, P = 0.006; >40 mm: RR = 5.14, 95% CI: 1.49-17.74, P = 0.010). In addition, rebamipide plus PPI therapy was discovered to be significantly more effective than PPIs alone for lower ESD-induced ulcers (RR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.04-3.20, P = 0.037). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with the ulcer reduction rate. CONCLUSION: Evidences now available show rebamipide plus PPIs is practical for protecting against ESD-induced ulcers at four weeks but not at eight weeks, especially large ulcers (>20 mm). However, we still need more high-quality RCTs in the future to supplement our conclusions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7539128
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75391282020-10-13 Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis Liu, Junyuan Xiong, Zhencheng Geng, Xuhua Cui, Meihua Biomed Res Int Research Article OBJECTIVE: To contrast the effect of rebamipide with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs alone for the treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD-) induced ulcers. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, the WanFang database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were recognized, including 1170 patients. In general, rebamipide plus PPIs acted better than PPIs alone against ESD-induced ulcers at four weeks (RR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.13-1.78, P = 0.003) but showed no significant differences at eight weeks (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97-1.10, P = 0.315). The use of rebamipide plus PPIs was superior to PPIs alone for ESD-induced ulcers greater than 20 mm in size (20-40 mm: RR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.22-3.23, P = 0.006; >40 mm: RR = 5.14, 95% CI: 1.49-17.74, P = 0.010). In addition, rebamipide plus PPI therapy was discovered to be significantly more effective than PPIs alone for lower ESD-induced ulcers (RR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.04-3.20, P = 0.037). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with the ulcer reduction rate. CONCLUSION: Evidences now available show rebamipide plus PPIs is practical for protecting against ESD-induced ulcers at four weeks but not at eight weeks, especially large ulcers (>20 mm). However, we still need more high-quality RCTs in the future to supplement our conclusions. Hindawi 2020-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7539128/ /pubmed/33062694 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7196782 Text en Copyright © 2020 Junyuan Liu et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Liu, Junyuan
Xiong, Zhencheng
Geng, Xuhua
Cui, Meihua
Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis
title Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis
title_full Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis
title_fullStr Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis
title_short Rebamipide with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) versus PPIs Alone for the Treatment of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcers: A Meta-analysis
title_sort rebamipide with proton pump inhibitors (ppis) versus ppis alone for the treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcers: a meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33062694
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7196782
work_keys_str_mv AT liujunyuan rebamipidewithprotonpumpinhibitorsppisversusppisaloneforthetreatmentofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectioninducedulcersametaanalysis
AT xiongzhencheng rebamipidewithprotonpumpinhibitorsppisversusppisaloneforthetreatmentofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectioninducedulcersametaanalysis
AT gengxuhua rebamipidewithprotonpumpinhibitorsppisversusppisaloneforthetreatmentofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectioninducedulcersametaanalysis
AT cuimeihua rebamipidewithprotonpumpinhibitorsppisversusppisaloneforthetreatmentofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectioninducedulcersametaanalysis